A Chapman University news article confuses what more people fear (sharks) with what people fear more (public speaking)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a brief Chapman University news article by Carly Murphy on June 27, 2024 titled Riding the Wave: fear of sharks surpasses public speaking as sharks dominate the news. She begins by stating:

 

“As you cover beach season stories, Chapman University’s 2023 Survey of American Fears offers a depth of data to the narrative. A trend has emerged: sharks are more feared than public speaking and other common anxieties. Key insights from the survey, which ranked 97 fears among 1,014 Americans include:

 

30.1% of Americans are scared or very scared of sharks, ranking 52nd overall. Fear of sharks surpasses that of public speaking (28.7%), reptiles (25.9%) and insects/spiders (25.3%).”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the percentages she discussed represent what more people fear, and not what people fear more. What people fear more is described by Fear Scores, on a scale from one to four (as shown above) where 1 = Not Afraid, 2 = Slightly Afraid, 3 = Afraid, and 4 = Very Afraid. And sharks in not the largest. Those scores are public speaking 2.041, sharks 2.021, reptiles 1.958, and insects/spiders 1.939. On October 30, 2015 I discussed calculating them when I blogged about how According to the 2015 Chapman Survey of American Fears, adults are less than Afraid of federal government Corruption and only Slightly Afraid of Public Speaking. (For 2023 the largest Fear Score for Corrupt government officials is 2.771).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 30.1% for sharks is the sum for the Very Afraid (12.9%) and Afraid (17.2%) fear levels  reported since 2015 by Chapman on their Percentage Lists (2023 here). Another 29.0% were just Slightly Afraid of sharks, and adding them produces a grand sum of 59.1%. But we also could just compare based on the Very Afraid percentage. As shown above, sharks then are above reptiles and public speaking. And, based on the grand sum both public speaking and insects/arachnids are feared by more people than sharks are.   

A shark cartoon came from Openclipart.

 

Update of the Speechwriting Resources Fact Sheet from the Congressional Research Service

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This week the Congressional Research Service updated their Fact Sheet on Speechwriting Resources, R44329. It was written by reference librarian Audrey Celeste Crane-Hirsch and is dated June 25, 2024. You can download the four-page pdf here.

 

The primary product referenced is Speechwriting in Perspective: A Brief Guide to Effective and Persuasive Communication (CRS Report 98-170) downloadable here. It also refers to the 2017 Finding Quotes for Speeches : Fact Sheet (also by Ms. Crane-Hirsch) which can be downloaded here. 

 

On December 19, 2017 I blogged about More speechwriting resources from the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

 

An image of the U.S. Capitol is from Wikimedia Commons.

Dangling participles - and horses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been skimming through a 2012 book by Constance Hale titled Vex, Hex, Smash, Smooch – Let verbs power your writing. On page 232 she says:

 

“Wanna know what really tickles a grammar diva? Dangling participles.

 

Remember, participles exist so that verbs can modify nouns. But a participial phrase really needs to cuddle up right next to the noun it is supposed to modify. If it doesn’t, if it drifts away from its noun and cozies up to another one, it becomes a dangling participle. Here’s my all-time favorite example:

 

Did you see the picture of the horses dangling from the ceiling?

 

That writer meant to refer to a picture hanging from the ceiling, but ended up describing a macabre piece of art (a depiction of horses that were in suspended animation).”

 

You also can find an article from American University titled Participle tense & dangling participles that can be downloaded as a two-page pdf. Another example there is:

 

“Having bitten several pedestrians, the owner forcibly muzzled his dog.”

 

which should instead of man bites pedestrians be:

 

“Having bitten several pedestrians, the dog was muzzled by his owner.”

 

There is a NASA publication by Mary K. McCaskill from 1990 titled Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization - A Handbook for Technical Writers and Editors (SP-7084) which can be downloaded as a 115-page pdf. Page 26 discusses dangling participles.

 

The image of dangling horses was derived from this horse statue held by a crane at Wikimedia Commons.

 

Back to Basics: Don’t murder a quotation!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the Gem State Patriot News (blog) there is an article (post) by John Livingston on June 17, 2024 titled Back to Basics. His third and fourth paragraphs are:

 

“Let me start this series with a quote from Fr. Robert Sirico the founder of The Acton Institute and a Catholic Diocesan Priest:

 

No civilization in the history of the world has survived or flourished without a religious foundation (even in Pagen and non-Western cultures—jml). Nor have classical great liberal thinkers neglected the spiritual nature of man. From the writings of the scholastics to the eighteenth-century British economists, they have always discovered a linkage between faith and freedom.” [- and economic liberty].

 

John murdered that quote. He got Who right, but not What, When, or Where. Of course Pagen should be Pagan. The quote comes from an essay titled The Moral Basis for Economic Liberty that can be found at The Heritage Foundation on July 13, 2010. It really says:

 

“No civilization in history has survived or flourished without a religious foundation. Nor have great classical liberal thinkers neglected the spiritual dimension of man. From the writings of the late Scholastics to 18th century British economists, they have always discovered a linkage between faith and freedom.”

 

There is no “of the world”, and it says “dimension” not nature. And “classical great” should have been “great classical.” It also has a qualifying ”late” before scholastics, and “18th century” rather than “eighteenth-century.”   

 

Back on January 21, 2024 I blogged about Ten quotes to motivate speaking in public – five of which are incorrect and explained:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“For a well-researched and real quotation, we can definitively describe (as shown above) Who said it, What he said, When he said it, and Where he said it.”

 

A murder cartoon was adapted from this one at Wikimedia Commons.

  

I write speeches in active voice - not passive voice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An article by the Writing Center for California State University San Marcos (CSUSM) titled Voice and Point of View advises:

 

“Passive voice occurs when the verb’s agent (the doer) is not the subject of the sentence. Active voice occurs when the subject of a sentence performs the verb’s action. Active voice is favored in most academic disciplines and everyday speech due to it is considered more assertive and less wordy. However, passive voice is favored in scientific disciplines since the observer may not be aware of what causes a phenomenon.”

 

A second article by The Writing Center for the University of Wisconsin – Madison titled Use the active voice discusses when to use passive voice:

 

“Generally, try to use the active voice whenever possible. Passive voice sentences often use more words, can be vague, and can lead to a tangle of prepositional phrases.”

 

When to use passive voice:

To emphasize the action rather than the actor

To keep the subject and focus consistent throughout a passage

To be tactful by not naming the actor

To describe a condition where the actor is unknown or unimportant

To create an authoritative tone”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A third article by John Cadley on page 28 in the April 2022 Toastmaster magazine titled Weasel Words gives a specific example:

 

“And let’s not forget the passive voice, a plethora of opportunities for the weaselly minded. For instance, ‘The design was presented to the client.’ Who was the presenter? Nobody, which is exactly what you want if the client hates the work. Compare this to ‘I presented the design to the client.’ That’s the active voice. Never use the active voice. It marks you with a big red X that says, ‘Looking for someone to blame? That’s me!’ Yes, you could take one for the team, but it’s not the weasel way.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A fourth article at the National Archives on July 2, 2019 titled Plain Writing Tips – Passive Voice and Zombies explains how to detect passive voice:

 

“So, here’s a handy tip to test your writing (by way of Ellen Fried on the ICN) and make you laugh. If you are afraid your sentence is in the passive voice, add the phrase ‘by zombies.’ If it still makes grammatical sense, it’s in the passive voice.

 

Passive: The form was processed and returned (by zombies).

Active: We completed your request and mailed the form to you…”

 

On April 14, 2024 I blogged about how Undelivered is a book by Jess Nussbaum on the never-heard speeches that would have rewritten history. A brief one was written by General Dwight Eisenhower, to deliver if the D-Day landings had failed:

 

“Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

 

He originally used passive voice, and had said:

 

 “The troops have been withdrawn.”

 

That change was discussed in a fifth article, a speech by Jeffrey Nussbaum titled What Reading Teaches that appeared on pages 38 and 39 in These Vital Speeches - The Best of the 2024 Cicero Speechwriting Awards.

 

A sixth article from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) titled Your Guide to CLEAR WRITING has A Note About Active Voice on page 48:

 

“In the 19th and early 20th centuries, scientists wrote in active voice. But around 1920, scientists started adopting passive voice, possibly because it seemed more objective and impersonal.

 

Scientific journals have swung back to active voice, especially because all majot publication manuals (AMA, APA, Chicago) recommend it. After all, active voice is clear, concise, and direct.

 

In fact, it’s difficult to find any journals that actually advocate for the use of passive voice. And prestigious journals such as the British Medical Journal specifically instruct authors to use active voice.

 

Use active voice as much as possible in your article. Use passive only when the actor is unknown or is of less importance. For example, you may use some passive voice in parts of the method section of your article.”

 

A seventh extremely detailed article by Jacob M. Carpenter from 2022 in Legal Communication & Rhetoric magazine (Volume 19 pages 95 to 127) titled The Problems and Positives, of Passives: Exploring why Controlling Passive Voice and Nominalizations Is About More Than Preference and Style can be downloaded as a 34-page pdf.

 

The image with active and passive was modified from this one at Openclipart. A zombie silhouette also came from there. The weasel was adapted from an image at Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

Chris Anderson on the powerful new idea of Infectious Generosity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chris Anderson is the head of TED. In November 2023 he gave an almost twenty-minute TED Talk titled It’s time for infectious generosity. Here’s how. It begins as follows:

 

“So, tonight I want to share with you 10 remarkable stories and introduce you to the people behind them, because I think collectively they have created a playbook for a truly world-changing idea. It’s a new way to think about generosity.

 

Generosity? Come on. I mean, surely that’s way too tiny a force to pit against the ugly world we’re facing. Not necessarily. You remember this guy [shows image of COVID-19]? This is so small, it’s invisible. But somehow it still found a way to shut down the world economy. Here’s the thing. You don’t need to be big to be powerful. You just need to be infectious.

 

So that’s the question we’re going to ask this evening. What would it take to make generosity infectious? Can we actually picture a world where instead of infecting each other with anger and upset and fear, we’re sparking waves of kindness across the planet? So I feel like I’ve been wrestling with this question, in one form or another, pretty much my whole life.

 

How can you be generous? I think my mother is to blame, I’m going to say, for this. Here we go, that’s … littlun’s me. Um, every day my mother showed us what it was like to be just deeply generous. She’s an extraordinary woman. And also a really hard act to follow, because my whole life I’ve been wrestling with this need to want to be generous, but feeling often like this onerous burden.

 

In 2006, something remarkable happened. I’d recently taken over leadership of this weird but wonderful conference called TED, and suddenly we were in a position where we could, if we wanted to, give away all our content online because of this new technology, online video. But should we do that? We were worried that it would kill the conference that we depended on. So I think it was my mother’s voice in my head, combined with a very brave group of people around me that gave clarity on this.

 

We decided to start posting TED Talks and were kind of stunned at what happened. TED went viral. Suddenly our little website was being hit by millions of people. And thousands of volunteer translators took TED into 100 languages. This was really beyond exciting, and it inspired us to double down on generosity and to start giving away our brand. Well, we thought we could let volunteers anywhere in the world run TED events, but just using the label TEDx. Seemed a little risky, it actually was.

 

But it led to an explosion of incredible events, things like giant theaters, far-flung cities, venues that we never could have imagined actually ourselves doing. We went to churches that they held them in, mountains, prisons several times, a refugee camp, and then football stadiums. This was mind-blowing to us. And if you think about it, we just gave away our brand. And tens of thousands of volunteers around the world gave their time, their energy, their talent, their financial risk to do this. It was mind blowing. It led to 200,000 TEDx videos being produced, a billion views annually.

 

So it got me thinking that … in this connected era, the rules around what we hold on to and what we give away had fundamentally changed. I mean, think about it. It’s much easier now to give away things that really matter to people at basically limitless scale, and those gifts carry with them the most important currency of our age, reputation. So this made me think that maybe the new mantra for the connected age should be something like this: Be brave. Give what you can, and then be absolutely amazed at what happens next. I don’t think this is just a mantra for TED. I think this is a mantra for every organization and actually for every individual. Well, how so, how so? Well, the first piece of good news is an underreported human trait. Kind of a weird thing when you step back and think about it….”       

 

Back on April 2013 there was an article by Nilofer Merchant in the Harvard Business Review titled When TED Lost Control of Its Crowd.

 

On the new books shelves in my friendly local public library I found the 2024 book by Chris Anderson titled Infectious Generosity: The Ultimate Idea Worth Spreading. His Epilogue starting on page 217 has the following manifesto:

 

“Every human has the potential to give. The urge to do this is built deep inside each of us, and can be stirred just by our being open to the needs of others. When we share our time, our money, or our creativity, those acts can spark responses in kind. So, once it gets started, generosity can spread like wildfire. As it passes from one person to the next, many lives can be touched. And our collective witnessing of what humans are capable of can overcome today’s prevailing cynicism, bringing people together in common cause.

 

The internet offers the possibility of a transformational amplification of human kindness. Until now, has too often played on our worst instincts, generating outrage, fear and division. But we can do something about that. Our connectedness allows us to express generosity in ways that were simply impossible before, sharing our best knowledge and creations with potentially millions of people all over the world. And, more than that, it allows us to share stories of generosity in ways that can inspire and delight.

 

Everyone can play a part here. You don’t have to be rich or a creative genius. If you can adopt a generous mindset, seek to understand people you disagree with, and write words that are kind instead of cruel, you can help turn the tide. There’s no single pathway to a generous life. But everyone can aspire to give more than they take.

 

Companies and organizations have a key role to play too. Our connectedness has changed rules around what we should give and what we should hold on to. Every organization should take a day to dream about what it may give away that could surprise and delight the world. The bolder and more creative you are, the more likely it is that your generosity will create exciting ripple effects that can transform your reputation.

 

Generosity starts with gratitude. When we pause for a moment, we can remember countless things we can be grateful for. If we make that a beautiful daily habit, it leads naturally to a desire to give back to the universe, to build generosity into our daily lives. This could be as simple as committing to one simple act of kindness every single day or devoting time to a cause we care about by volunteering, mentoring, or engaging in online advocacy. It could also mean taking a financial pledge – donating annually the higher of 10 percent of our income or 2.5 percent of our individual net worth to the causes we have thoughtfully prioritized. If that pledge were widely adopted, it would raise enough money to tackle every single problem that humanity faces.

 

Even for the most generous among us, it can be hard to know when and how best to give. This is a task for both heart and head. Commit to spending time immersed in an issue you care about. And at the same time ask the big questions: How big is this? How solvable is this? How neglected is this? Look for organizations that are having an impact. Give them a chance with your money. You’ll never have certainty around what the ‘best’ use of your money is. It’s better to be out there contributing and learning than timidly refusing to take any risks. Most important of all, look for like-minded contributors. The work of change is a lot more satisfying as a team sport. When we join forces, we can achieve so much more, while also getting more joy from it.

 

This is a moment to reimagine how generosity could transform us. It’s a chance to dream about audacious philanthropy focused on the needs of the whole world. About companies with the vision to get on the right side of history. About a global uprising of ordinary citizens determined to reclaim the internet and make it a force for good in our world. Are we ready to get excited about the future once again? It’s time!

 

And for you personally, this is about that most elusive, inspiring, and beautiful thing: the quest for meaning. We were born to be connected. So give in any way that you feel able. Give creatively. Give courageously. Give collaboratively. And let the magic of generosity ripple out into the universe.

 

If you do that, don’t be surprised if one day you wake up and hear a whisper from inside: ‘I have never felt so happy.’ “

 

An image of spreading surface waves came from Roger McLassus at Wikimedfia Commons.

 

Can you even read a chart in a report? Another level of lies about attention spans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an article by Thais Roberto at the KEYSTONE EDUCATION GROUP on February 8, 2023 titled The first 8 seconds – capturing the attention of Gen Z students. Her third paragraph begins:

 

“Research conducted by Microsoft in 2015 found that the average attention span of Gen Z individuals was only about eight seconds, four seconds less than that of millennials.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But that is complete nonsense. Page 6 of that Microsoft report is shown above, with the numbers of seconds highlighted in red. It mentions neither millennials, nor Gen Z.

 

Also, the source was Statistic Brain, and not Microsoft. I blogged about that on December 30, 2022 in a post titled Shallow research and less curious than hoped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where else has this new level of nonsense - with Gen Z and millennials been mentioned? One place is by Vineet Arya at Entrepreneur India in an article on June 5, 2019 titled How to not lose attention of Gen Z in the 8 seconds that you have? A second is another article at tradable bits on December 18, 2019 titled How to capture Gen Z’s 8-second attention span through ads. And a third is yet another article by Yehuda Roberts at BrighterDayMh blog on January 9, 2024 titled Average Human Attention Span Statistics.

 

The image of a woman and laptop was modified from one at Wikimedia Commons.

 

Rubrics for evaluating informative and persuasive speeches from the National Communication Association

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In education jargon a rubric is a set of criteria for assessing a type of work. Back on May 8, 2010 I blogged about Rubrics and figuring out where you are. In that post I discussed a general Competent Speaker Speech Evaluation Form available from the National Communication Association (NCA). NCA also has two other more specific rubrics which you can download, covering informative and persuasive speeches.

 

Their two-page Informative Speech Rubric has six sections (totaling 100 points) covering the following topics:

 

Outline: (10 points) Outline format, references

 

Introduction (20 points) Attention getter, Background and audience relevance, Speaker credibility, Thesis, Preview

 

Body (30 points) Main points, Evidence and Support, Organization, Language, Transitions, Sources

 

Conclusion (10 points) Signals conclusion, Reviews purpose/thesis and main points

 

Delivery (15 points) Eye contact, Verbal delivery, Nonverbal delivery

 

Overall Impression (15 points) Topic, Adapted to Audience, Preparation and Practice

 

And their two-page Persuasive Speech Rubric also has six sections (totaling 100 points) covering the following topics:

 

Outline: (10 points) Outline format, references

 

Introduction (20 points) Attention getter, Background and audience relevance, Speaker credibility, Thesis, Preview

 

Body (30 points) Main points, Evidence and Support, Organization, Language, Transitions, Sources, Toulmin, Persuasive Appeals

 

Conclusion (10 points) Signals conclusion, Reviews purpose/thesis and main points, Call to action, Memorable close

 

Delivery (15 points) Eye contact, Verbal delivery, Nonverbal delivery

 

Overall Impression (15 points) Topic, Adapted to Audience, Preparation and Practice, Time Limits, Quality and relevance of aids, Was persuasive

 

These rubrics are referenced in their web pages under Basic Course & General Education under a tab for Academic & Professional Resources, then Teaching and Learning, and finally Assessing the basic course.

 

Toastmasters doing informative or persuasive speeches may find these rubrics useful, since they are more detailed than those in Pathways, like one for Persuasive Speaking.

 

My You Are Here image was adapted from this one at Wikimedia Commons.

 

Is there much wrong with public education in Idaho?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heck no. Conservatives like the Idaho Freedom Foundation like to disparage and belittle Idaho’s public school system. And on June 9, 2024 there is an article by Bob ‘Nugie’ Neugebauer at the Gem State Patriot News on June 9, 2024 titled What’s wrong with public education in Idaho? (and subtitled The Case for School Choice). His first two paragraphs say:

 

“I’m not sure how many times I have to say this but if you want to solve the problems of our school system, parents need to start by attending the school board meetings and voting for conservative board members. It’s interesting that Idaho is still at the bottom of the scale nationally when it comes to K-12 education spending at $8,100 per student, considering we spend over $3 billion on public education, which is about 55% of the state budget. Yet even spending that huge sum of money, we do not get the bang for our buck as taxpayers.

 

The question is why do we rank so low for spending eight thousand per pupil while Utah spends about the same and is ranked number 2 in the country in K-12?”

 

In the second paragraph he incorrectly referred to another article at U.S. News, which actually ranked Utah at #6 for PreK-12, and at #2 considering both PreK-12 and Higher Education.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What’s interesting is where we rank relative to all six of our neighbors, not just Utah. For PreK-12 those rankings actually are:

 

Utah #6

Wyoming #19

Idaho #23

Montana #27

Washington #32

Oregon #44

Nevada #45

 

We rank #23 (in the top half) which is not so low – and third among our neighbors. And considering both PreK-12 and Higher Education the rankings are:

 

Utah #2

Wyoming #7

Washington #13

Idaho #18

Montana #22

Nevada #37

Oregon #40

 

We rank #18 (again in the top half) which is not so low – and fourth among our neighbors (right in the middle).

 

How about his claim “we do not get the bang for our buck as taxpayers.”  An article by Jason Bedrick and Jonathan Butcher from a conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, on

September 16, 2022 is instead titled Heritage Foundation finds Idaho schools deliver biggest bang for the buck. Then there was yet another article by Ronald N. Nate at the Idaho Freedom Foundation on December 7, 2023 titled Losing Streak – Idaho Educational Freedom. I blogged about it on December 9, 2023 in a post titled Did Idaho’s educational freedom have a losing streak? For Return on Investment, we and our neighbors ranked as follows (with an amazing top trifecta!):

 

Idaho #1

Utah #2

Nevada #3

Washington #8

Montana #26

Oregon #39

Wyoming #41

 

And the overall rankings were:

 

Utah #3

Idaho #11

Montana #17

Nevada #23

Wyoming #34

Washington #43

Oregon #51

 

The school cartoon came from Openclipart.

 

Hedges, qualifiers, and intensifiers are essentially weasel words which can be removed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a web page for the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (unitar) titled Qualifiers and hedges and other TONE softeners beginning with the following:

 

“Qualifiers: lessen the full impact of the message being communicated; make things appear ‘less than 100%’

somewhat, a (little) bit, slight, slightly, small, a few, minor, insignificant, certain, possible, potential, not quite, etc.

 

Hedges: words that make matters seem less definite, certain – a bit more open-ended and less direct

seem, appear, reportedly, apparently, likely, unlikely, essentially, actually, basically, possibly, perhaps. Reportedly and allegedly also are frequently used in political and conflict analysis.”

 

There is another web page from Patricia Fripp on March 23, 2023 titled Want to know why your weak words are taking away your power? She says speech qualifiers can undermine our credibility, diminish the impact of our message, and distract our audience from our message.

 

And in Ben Yagoda’s 2013 book titled How to Not Write Bad: The most common writing problems and how to avoid them on page 113 he states:

 

“I’d estimate that three-quarters of the time, you can improve a sentence by striking out the qualifiers (pretty, somewhat, a little, kind of and the currently popular kinda, sort of, rather, arguably slightly) and intensifiers (very, extremely, really, completely, totally, absolutely, unbelievably, remarkably, and of course literally).”

 

The British Wildlife Centre image of a weasel came from Wikimedia Commons.

 

An excellent quotation about teaching rhetoric by Erasmus - from the Book of Quotations on Rhetoric by Thomas J. Kinney

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Via a Google search I found a 121-page pdf Book of Quotations on Rhetoric by Thomas J. Kinney (from a web page at the University of Arizona). There is an excellent one on page 29 coming from the famous philosopher Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (1466 to 1536):

 

“Let’s not ignore the teaching of rhetoric, for it helps us greatly in finding out, arranging, and managing arguments, and in avoiding things that are irrelevant to or hinder our case.”

 

A painting of Erasmus by Hans Holbein was modified from an image at Wikimedia Commons.

 

The Toulmin Scheme is another useful rhetorical tool

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the new books shelves of my friendly local public library I recently found the 2024 book by Robin Reames titled The Ancient Art of Thinking for Yourself: The power of rhetoric in polarized times. I have been skimming through it. Titles for five of her six chapters include classical names. They are followed by a Conclusion chapter and a detailed educational one on How to Think Rhetorically. In my previous post on June 8, 2024, I blogged about how The Pentad from Kenneth Burke is a rhetorical tool for sorting out stories people tell.

 

Her Chapter 4 is titled Deep Ideology: What’s Buried in Alcibiades’s Words. Starting with a paragraph at the bottom of page 139 she says:

 

“The fact that we don’t much use formal logical methods when we make arguments doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re being illogical. It just means that our arguments don’t come in strictly logical packaging. Quite often they come in quasi-logical packaging. There is often a hidden quasi-logical structure to the arguments that people make every day, or so the twentieth-century logician Stephen Toulmin, an important figure in the New Rhetoric movement, believed. The Uses of Argument by Toulmin was one of several books published in 1958 by New Rhetoric thinkers like Hannah Arendt, Kenneth Burke, Chaim Perelman, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. In that postwar era, these thinkers were determined to redouble their efforts in recovering reasoned debate, speech, persuasion, and argumentation. Toulmin developed his model of argumentation, now known as the Toulmin scheme, to expose the common underlying structure of everyday arguments.

 

In many ways, Toulmin was simply trying to bring the study of logic back to its Aristotelian roots, since Aristotle himself aimed to provide a method that could expose how actual reasoning occurs. Like Aristotle in postwar Athens and other luminaries of the New Rhetoric in postwar Europe and America, Toulmin didn’t want logic to be a merely academic activity, cut off from the real work of human argumentation and understanding. Instead, he wanted to show how people make actual arguments in everyday discourse, and how understanding this might raise the bar of rational discussion. In everyday arguments, people respond to perceived problems and make claims about what ought to happen, guided by a sense of what is possible. They defend their claims against challengers, both real and hypothetical.”

   

There is an article at Purdue University’s Purdue Online Writing Lab [OWL] titled Toulmin Argument which succinctly explains:

 

“Developed by philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin, the Toulmin method is a style of argumentation that breaks arguments down into six component parts: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing. In Toulmin’s method, every argument begins with three fundamental parts: the claim, the grounds, and the warrant.

 

A claim is the assertion that authors would like to prove to their audience. It is, in other words, the main argument.

 

The grounds [data] of an argument are the evidence and facts that help support the claim.

 

Finally, the warrant, which is either implied or stated explicitly, is the assumption that links the grounds to the claim. ….

 

Backing refers to any additional support of the warrant. In many cases, the warrant is implied, and therefore the backing provides support for the warrant by giving a specific example that justifies the warrant.

 

The qualifier shows that a claim may not be true in all circumstances. Words like ‘presumably,’ ‘some,’ and ‘many’ help your audience understand that you know there are instances where your claim may not be correct.

 

The rebuttal is an acknowledgement of another valid view of the situation.”  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In her educational chapter on How to Think Rhetorically Robin has a section starting on page 245 titled Let’s Think Rhetorically: The Toulmin Scheme. A simple, graphical Harry Potter example is shown above.

 

Her discussion starting in the first new paragraph on page 248 says:

 

“You can think more rhetorically using the Toulmin scheme by choosing any argument from a public debate that interests you and breaking it down into Toulmin’s five [sic] components. And you can even use the blank template on the following page as a guide). The following questions will get you started. Once you get going, the process can be eye-opening.

 

Start with the data. Why? It’s typically the easiest to spot People rarely advance a claim without citing some statistic, fact, figure, or concrete reality.

 

Ask yourself, What claim is this data supporting?

 

Identify the backing. What basic rule, law, principle, or precept is the warrant based on? You can sometimes get at the backing by asking what field that type of argument would be found in (law, science, aesthetics, etc.).

 

Look for qualifiers and rebuttals. Or imagine what kinds of qualifiers and rebuttals would be appropriate, given the relationship between the backing and the claim. If a person makes an unqualified argument, or if he can see no case where his argument does not apply, then this can show us why it feels as though there is no room for discussion.”

 

There is a very detailed 2024 CSU Writing Guide by Laurel Nesbit titled Using the Toulmin Method which you can download as a thirty-page pdf.

 

The Pentad from Kenneth Burke is a rhetorical tool for sorting out stories people tell

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the new books shelves of my friendly local public library I found the 2024 book by Robin Reames titled The Ancient Art of Thinking for Yourself: The power of rhetoric in polarized times. I have been skimming through it. Titles for five of her six chapters include classical names: Gorgias, Protagoras, Alcibiades, Callias, and Aspasia. They are followed by a Conclusion chapter and a detailed educational one on How to Think Rhetorically.

 

Chapter 3 is titled How Rhetoric Shapes Reality: Protagoras on What Language Can Do. A section starting on page 83 is titled Tell Me a Story, and it begins with the following paragraph:

 

“In the aftermath of the Second World War, a rhetorical critic named Kenneth Burke made the case for analyzing the stories people tell in order to understand how they package reality. He believed that a careful analysis of Hitler’s rhetoric – indeed, any rhetoric – might have prevented his disastrous rise to power. Burke’s five-part method for analyzing stories (which he called ‘the pentad’) was his attempt to examine ‘the basic stratagems which people employ, in endless variations, and consciously or unconsciously, for the outwitting or cajoling of one another.’ If we could recognize those stories as stories, Burke thought, we’d be less easily outwitted and cajoled.”

 

There is a good brief discussion by John R. Edlund in an article at Teaching Text Rhetorically on September 29, 2018 titled Using Kenneth Burke’s Pentad. The Wikipedia article is titled Dramatistic pentad. And there is yet another article by Gregory Kuper at LinkedIn Pulse on January 22, 2021 titled Dramatism: A Communication Theory That Can Be Utilized By Organizations To Better Understand Persuasion.

 

In her educational chapter on How to Think Rhetorically Robin has a section starting on on page 241 titled Let’s Think Rhetorically: The Pentad. Her discussion of those terms is:

 

Act

The act is dramatic action that the discourse describes as taking place. What terms refer to the action? What does the speaker or rhetor claim is happening in the world? What actions, behaviors, events, or occurrences does the discourse describe?....

 

Scene

The scene is the context that contains the act. Typically, people describe scenes in ways that set a tone for the action they contain. For example, ‘a dark and stormy night’ sets a tone of ominous foreboding; ‘a bright and sunny morning’ sets an optimistic and cheery tone. ….

 

Agent (aka the main characters)

The agent is the term that refers to the person or persons performing the main action. The agent is the central figure who is playing some role in a scene. While a piece of discourse may describe many different people or groups, typically the main section will center around one person or group of people who is the main actor. ….

 

Agency (aka the props)

The agency refers to the tool, instrument, or means that the agent uses to perform the action. In the same way that a carpenter uses tools to build furniture or a chef uses pots and pans to prepare a meal, the agency is the term or terms that refer to the tools or instruments that the main agent uses in the scene. ….

 

Purpose

Why is the agent doing what he is doing? What is the reason or goal for the act? The answers to these questions indicate the purpose. The purpose encompasses the values, aims, objectives, and intentions that guide the agent and compel her to perform the act.

 

There is a good brief Harry Potter based example of using the Pentad in a four-minute YouTube video by Bethany Alley titled Kenneth Burke’s Dramatic Pentad. The act is making a potion. The scene is the potions classroom at Hogwarts. The agent is Hermione Granger, a Hogwarts student. The agency is those supplies and ingredients used to make the potion. The purpose just was to complete a class assignment.  

 

There is a long, detailed example of the Pentad in an article by R. Chase Dunn in Kaleidoscope, on pages 73 to 89 in 2018, titled “The Future is in Good Hands”: A Pentadic Analysis of President Barack Obama’s Farewell Address.